Rants and Raves on Espresso

We’ve all been told that coffee’s self-fabricated Third Wave has brought many improvements and options to our enjoyment of coffee. Whether you subscribe to this wave theory or not, quality coffee has experienced an unmistakable renaissance over the past decade or two.

Of course, the same could be said for olives, olive oil, vinegar, cheese, pork, cured meats, beer, scotch, tea, chocolate, and even salt — even if these examples are all technically “waveless” (we prefer wave-free). And although we’ve been encouraged by the state of quality coffee in recent years, we’ve also been thinking about how limiting and confining this so-called Third Wave has been by engendering its own copy-cat behaviors.

Many of these confinements may not seem obvious today, because we’re still momentarily dazzled by the novelty. But if you subscribe to a wave theory of coffee, just what will future waves have to say about where we are today? This post is the first installment in a series of three on this subject.

Why Waves?

Before we explain the shortcomings of the current wave, first a moment to explain why we find this whole wave business dubious to begin with. The moment you declare yourself in some sort of wave is the moment you’ve dated yourself. This has been true whether you’re a drummer for Blondie, a director of French cinema, or a writer of science fiction.

Having grown (groan?) tired of the contrived generational analogies in music, cinema, and the Web, we’ve always felt that a term like Third Wave represented a sort of self-ordained self-importance combined with an aching desire to always live in interesting times — even if it means building an unwavering belief, a benign form of mass hysteria, that your own times are more interesting than they actually are.

History is littered with political and sociological examples of this. It’s no coincidence that many of these examples, including coffee’s Third Wave, originated among younger people convinced they had discovered something the world had never experienced before — mistaking naïvité and newbie-ism for enlightenment and wisdom. (In speaking with impressionable college students who wax poetic upon just discovering Ayn Rand and Objectivism, I’ve personally lost count of how many eye rolls I’ve had to restrain over the years.)

Many coffee veterans shake their heads, thinking, “If only they knew how often these industry changes come and go.” Many of coffee’s Young Turks shake their heads, thinking, “Forget that old guy — he’s not very Third Wave.”

We refute the idea of waves simply because coffee quality has been an evolutionary, and not revolutionary, process. Claims of “revolution” largely come from those newest to the business who have the least amount of context, and coffee has too many centuries of history to suddenly favor a more myopic viewpoint.

A Necessary Twilight for Third Wave Coffee Fads

But waves or no waves, quality coffee is currently mired in industry fads that, in due time, will seem at least as antiquated and primitive as some of the coffee drinking fads we can look back upon today — things like percolators, instant coffee, “charcoal” roasts, flavored coffees, etc.

In our next installment, we’ll examine some of Third Wave coffee’s biggest qualitative fads — and why we must get past these fads for accessible quality coffee to continue to evolve:

Single-origin coffees

Medium roasts

The heavy-handed use of cuppings

And for the last post in our series, we’ll controversially cover the impact of some of its major social fads and how these, too, are holding back quality coffee’s evolution:

20 Responses to “How future coffee “Waves” will come to disparage the so-called Third, Part 1”

In your background research for this “series,” have you read the original article that Trish wrote for the Roasters’ Guild that started this “wave theory?”

Perhaps she’ll chime in on her own, but I’ll say this much now: the “third wave” article that started this was an observation based on new developments that she saw going on in the specialty coffee industry in Scandinavia and in the U.S. That’s all.

You still seem hell-bent on assigning all this extraneous stuff to the Third Wave thing and whacking away at it… and I still call ‘straw man’ on you, dude.

Case in point:
“We refute the idea of waves simply because coffee quality has been an evolutionary, and not revolutionary, process.”

This sort of appears to be the crux of your Part 1 here. Here are what seem to be the premises behind your statement:
1) there has been no revolution, only evolution
2) “third wavers” believe coffee quality is a revolutionary, not evolutionary process
3) “third wave” pertains mostly to coffee QUALITY itself

My response (for now):
1) Irrelevant. The two are sometimes very distinct ideas, sometimes interchangeable, all dependent on the context and the definitions at the time.
2) FALSE. Perhaps some people do, but naivete will be found everywhere to some degree. The generalization makes it false.
3) FALSE. Coffee quality is an important part of it, but I believe that it has much more to do with how professionals, companies, and consumers engage coffee.

I believe that Third Wave is mostly a paradigm. It’s an approach. It’s a way to look at coffee. Whether people choose to identify themselves as Third Wave or not is irrelevant… much to the dismay of a great many anti-establishment coffee folks. You’re either someone who engages coffee in a certain way, or you’re not. Or, well, you sort-of are. 😛

I’ve debated with someone who continues to define or at least equate “Third Wave” with angsty hipster baristas with tattoos. When I reply that isn’t what “Third Wave” is, he basically argues that he can co-opt the term to mean whatever he thinks it means, and that Trish’s original ideas and intents were practically irrelevant now. I hope you don’t think the same.

Having mentioned our names in your earlier writings on the subject, I’d assume that you’d lend some credence to Trish and me regarding the concepts and ideas that define(d) “Third Wave,” and at least consider the possibility that “Third Wave” might not mean what you think it does.

As you know, I have definitely long understood that what you intended Third Wave to mean, and what 98% of those in the coffee business and among coffee enthusiasts have taken it to mean, have digressed significantly in the past several years.

Unfortunately, and I’m sure you must have experienced this first-hand many times, your original principle is very much in the minority today. The term has been mutated and snowballed way beyond your control to now represent things far from your original intentions.

To debate it on those original intentions is going to be pointless. It’s like debating why human language should follow dictionaries, when in fact it’s the dictionaries that have to keep up with the common vernacular of society.

So sorry if that disappoints, but none of this is going to be about your original tenet, I’m afraid. In fact, the only connection the next few posts on this will have with any Third Wave is that today it has become a vulgar shorthand for a moment in time in the pursuit of higher quality coffee. This will be more about self-awareness of these fads, and how they are going to be subject to change, if quality coffee is to evolve beyond them.

Britain’s best barista Gwilym Davies (as he was crowned last week) says he is part of the third wave of coffee. The first wave peaked when freeze-dried techniques made coffee popular, if not necessarily any good. The second wave came with global Starbucksification, whereby large chains of gourmet coffee shops, home espresso machines and the shift from robusta to aribica coffee beans – all helped improve coffee quality.

“The third wave is about taking coffee to the next level,” says Davies, 42

I understand that your writings are based on your observations and experience.

Understand that I’m speaking from my experience and observations, and I believe that you are incorrect in your generalizations, characterizations, stereotypes, and conclusions.

Having traveled around the world and around the US, observing the specialty coffee industry from every angle, my observations and conclusions are markedly different from yours.

While I won’t bemoan you your analysis, I will respectfully say that your observations seem quite myopic, and are contrary to my observations. The conclusions that we’d each come to are necessarily divergent.

I disagree with your point:

“As you know, I have definitely long understood that what you intended Third Wave to mean, and what 98% of those in the coffee business and among coffee enthusiasts have taken it to mean, have digressed significantly in the past several years.”

In reading your other two posts on this topic, our disagreement seems more clear: This is not about definitions. It’s about observations. Your observations are very narrow.

Nick — I honestly have no idea where this is coming from. Especially after the Guardian article I cited above that I came across that same day. You may as well have just told me that you have three heads.

I honestly can only conclude that the sky in your universe must be a different color than the blue in mine.

The comments section is not usually reserved for arguing with the blog writer. I happen to thoroughly enjoy reading The Shot several times a week, and my conceptions regarding coffee are regularly challenged by the posts on this blog.

However, it is worth stating that this mental stimulation occurs even in the absense of comments that criticize the writer. I believe that I, as well as other readers, am capable of picking out false or misleading arguments on my own. I do not need a third party to play this part.

Blogs do not have editors by design. For the sake of the readers, don’t pretend to be one, Nick.

What is it that the Guardian article says? What definitive conclusions are you deriving from that short article?

Where do you see this “third wave” that YOU speak of?

I’ll give you this: you make some good points, critical of certain practices or trends/fads, etc. I too am a little skeptical about ‘consumer cuppings.’ However, where you fail is in your attempt at lumping that together with the fact that there have been significant changes to the specialty coffee industry and up and down the chain, and that coffee professionals and consumers are indeed engaging coffee in a way previously non-existent, and in greater numbers all the time.

For you to triumphantly declare, “The genie is not only out of the bottle. It just knocked out Mothra and is eating half of Tokyo…” was more than a little confusing for me. “Third wave” has been mentioned in the NYT, Washington Post, Imbibe Mag, on the Discovery Channel, and many other articles, books, and the like. Sometimes, like with anything, the writer “gets it,” and sometimes they don’t (“third way?”).

For you to cite The Guardian as any kind of evidence of anything only reinforces my earlier claim: you’re engaged in a straw-man fallacy. Not intentionally nor maliciously, it seems, but one which you have built up due to your limited perspective and narrow view nonetheless.

@ Nick: The Guardian article is just representational: “Taking coffee to the next level,” as opposed to freeze-dried coffee and Starbucks. Presto. Instant waves. Huh? It says nothing about engagement. In fact, it mostly implies levels of quality and the passage of time — which is how that 98% has come to define it.

But as for your premise of “How people engage with coffee”… My next question would be, “And?…” Then “And how is that any different from, say, how people engage with cured meats or olive oil?”

I’m left with no idea on where to begin to choose which wave of engagement covers the Ethiopian coffee ceremony. Then my head will explode trying to wave-sort the Viennese artists, scientists, and philosophers who redefined their society; Loeff and the 1830s invention of the vac pot; Gaggia and the invention of the espresso machine, etc.

The single biggest difference between coffee and cured meats or olive oil: the vast majority of coffee is grown in third-world, developing economies, that with very few exceptions don’t have domestic coffee consumption markets.

Generations of coffee growers… who have never tasted coffee in the finished form that you or I do. Who have no real idea what quality means, because they’ve never been taught. Coffee growers who have regularly picked their crops clean without regard for ripeness… because a commodity by definition requires no real quality-control.

Exporters and importers who no longer deal solely with mill-marques, or generic region names… instead separating lots and crops, for traceability and to be able to follow the coffee back to a particular farm.

Roasters who are able to, particularly thanks to the internet, communicate with producers and exporters in ways never possible before, exchanging information for mutual benefit.

One of my favorite coffees is El Salvador Finca Mauritania, from my friend Aida Batlle. She told me that before 2003, coffee from her farm had simply NEVER been evaluated on its own before. That coffee had NEVER been tasted on its own. Such a thing just wasn’t done.

Again, I’ll allow that your experiences have shaped your perspective here. Be open to the idea that your experiences and perspectives may be too limited to be making your indictments fairly.

The coffee producing versus coffee consuming nations point makes a lot of sense. There are some growing nations where coffee consumption is big in the local culture — for example, coffee consumption per capita in Brazil is higher than that in the U.S. But I know these are, by far, the exception to the rule.

But even with examples such as Brazil, there’s often been a difference between coffee for export versus domestic coffee (e.g., Jamaica, El Salvador, Mexico, etc. all come to mind). So the real crux to what you’re writing about here concerns tailoring coffee production to the consumer interests and demands of an overseas market, which is a little different. From what you describe, it sounds more about growers “knowing their customer” — marketing, actually — rather than the issue of never tasting their coffee before. (For example, previous, “commodity” markets didn’t demand nor require that from their growers, and there was little benefit to them for doing such.)

And certainly the numbers of farmers who are becoming more sophisticated about their customers is growing substantially. In a word, they actually have to — as the alternative choice is often more dire poverty, crop conversion, and/or starvation.

But does the idea of more coffee growers recognizing the need for higher levels of export marketing constitute a wave, especially in light of the fact that they are hardly among the first to do so? Or that such marketing previously existed, just that the demands on them were much lower? That’s where I am much less convinced.

“Tailoring coffee production to the consumer interests and demands of an overseas market” is jumping ahead a bit. You have to understand the very basics about coffee quality to even be thinking about “tailoring.” The commodity market did more than not require “knowing their customer.” The farmer had no ability (call it ignorance, or call it disenfranchisement) to actually evaluate the quality of their product. For instance in Kenya, as celebrated as Kenyan coffee is and has been for years, the producers themselves had very little understanding of how their coffee ended up scoring well at auction.

And certainly the numbers of farmers who are becoming more sophisticated about their customers is growing substantially. In a word, they actually have to — as the alternative choice is often more dire poverty, crop conversion, and/or starvation.”

<—But understand that the “growing substantially” is not something to gloss over, and you must acknowledge that there’s something going on on the consumer-side that’s engendering this development.

But does the idea of more coffee growers recognizing the need for higher levels of export marketing constitute a wave, especially in light of the fact that they are hardly among the first to do so? Or that such marketing previously existed, just that the demands on them were much lower? That’s where I am much less convinced.

Looking at each element in isolation, you could explain it away, sure. Look at the totality, and you must admit that there’s something going on… something that’s more than just contrived, hipster, elitist constructs. That said, “first” isn’t everything, and I for one make no claims for “first” anything.

I’ve often said that if there’s one thing I’ve learned as a coffee professional, it’s: don’t EVER claim to be the FIRST of ANYTHING. 🙂

At the same time, certainly there’s “something going on”. But of course from my perspective, it seems more like an ongoing process — just as all markets for consumables aren’t exactly static. One could define history itself as a collection of things going on.

So when looking at Kenyan farmers, or what happened since the 1948 designation of Jamaica’s Blue Mountain appellation and the prices its coffee soon commanded, for the life of me I cannot see how I could easily cleave things between “wave x” and “wave y”.

Tim,
That was insanely juvenile and comments like that have no place here. If you have any real problems with Nick you should address them like an adult and not make an ass of yourself on a public forum.

Blog’s with comments sections enabled are forums of DISCUSSION. Right or wrong the other should be happy to have someone challenge their point of view and information even if just to help make their own argument stronger.
I gleaned much from both sides of the conversation and would say that anyone reading this is now more equipped to develop their own OPINION on the subject.
Thanks for both of the contributions.
~N

TS – My intention was not to defend Nick, his actions, character or commenting on anything he has written outside of this specific post.
I am not one for personal attacks just for the sake of it, especially when the content is irrelevant to the subject at hand. I felt Tim’s comment was out of line and there are ways to express your dislike for someone in a much more constructive way. Besides, the remark did not contribute anything to the topic up for discussion.

I really enjoyed reading the sparring match between you two and identified with points from both sides, I felt it was unnecessary to pull out such a personal attack. That’s all.
Fin.
~N

I am not one for posting comments but the stupidity of the article has fuelled total idiocy. The article under discussion seems to portray annoyance(at not being part of the new wave?)from the outset.

Quote- ‘and why we must get past these fads for accessible quality coffee to continue to evolve:

Single-origin coffees
Medium roasts’

Choice and provenance- totally agree- silly fads. When we finally do away with those new fangled espresso machines coffee will truly peak!

‘Third wave’ is a catchphrase, picked up by industry individuals who seek to separate themselves from *$’s et al. You could easlily argue for 8 waves or a constant lapping of the water Actually, to be as stupid as some of the posters, this would have to be a third flood as this whole wave metaphor implies a return to a previous level. I think we all agree coffee has improved over time.
There is no need to become incensed by indescriminate use of lingo and catchphrases. This is not religion and the burr grinder was not created on the 5th day.

Quote- ‘I’ve often said that if there’s one thing I’ve learned as a coffee professional, it’s: don’t EVER claim to be the FIRST of ANYTHING’

Truly sage advice, no doubt gleaned from a life time of false claims and ego driven statements…